Kia Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The general concensus seems to be that Kia are poor performers when it comes to fuel economy.


Discuss...



(lobs hand grenade and runs quickly away...
)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Having read several threads owners appear to be disappointed since the cars do not match the claimed figures but its not just Kia,no car I have ever owned has matched the claimed figures.


Have a Ceed 3 SW CRDi, only done 500 miles so far but it appears to have averaged about 45mpg so far, happy with that, about the same as the Focus C-Max 1.6 TDCi it replaced and it will get better as the miles pile on. The claimed for the Focus was 58mpg combined against 60mpg for the Ceed thus expect the Ceedto be doing about 2mpg more than the Focus, will report back later.



The other car in the house is a 2008 BMW 118d, the one with stop-start, claimed is about 63mpg. Had it for 19000 miles now and it has averaged 47.5mpg. Way short of the claimed figure but I still think its good for a 2 litre with 143bhp, much better than a 2002 Mondeo with 128bhp I had some years ago, that only managed to average about 39 mpg against a claimed 48mpg.



Manufacturers "massage" the figures I am sure to make the cars look as good as possible on paper, I use the figures as a guide only when buying. The upside is thelower the claimed consumption the lower the CO and the less tax we pay each year, the BMW is 119 CO's thus £30 per year.



Only ever owned one car that nearly matched the climed figures, a 2005 Mini Cooper S, combined was about 33 mpg, over 15000 miles it did about 32 mpg, way better than I expected.



All the above figures are based on fuel used not on the sometimes inaccurate computer, 90's G o l f was always 8 mpg higher than reality.



One solution would be for an independant organisation like NCAP to carry out the tests rather than allowing the manufacturers to carry them out but how would they garantee getting a "standard" spec car for testing?



Personally I am happy with the current situation, if the figures were made more realistic we would all end up paying more car tax.



Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Good day fellow Kia owners.
Further thoughts to the economy debate. My Ceed2 1.6 crdi "high power" (Bit of a contradiction in terms there) is doing very well on fuel. I have posted on this debate before but the car is now fully run in and going really well. Has no problem keeping up with crazy eldest son in his 130 BHP mondeo diesel. I only have a 5 mile run to work and back, driven solo I attain over the week 55 ish MPG. However at weekends we add wife (not to chubby), daughter (chubbyish) and youngest son (seriously chubby) plus a medium sized dog and all the crap that goes with them and normally head of into the sunset travelling about 60-80 miles, then we attain the dizzy heights of 62-66 MPG. To say that I am well pleased with the fuel consumption is the understatement. My only marginal critisism is the notchy gearchange when cold.

Perhaps someone could answer a question for me...as a company advertises on this forum a device to increase the power of our Kias, can one safely assume that Kia won't "blow a gasket" about the warranty if they find your car is fitted with one when it goes in for a service ??

Rog
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
How did you drive for the first 600 miles? Did you do as the booklet said and not stay at one speed too long?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Hello M4 trundler.
I can confirm that for the first 600 miles my speed and therefore engine revs were varied considerably and at no time did the revs go over 3000 in any gear. Even on the few long runs that we did in the first 600 miles the motorway speeds varied between 55 and 75 so as to abide by "the rules".

Hope that this info is what you wanted to hear. Happy to answer any other queries relating to my Cee'd.

Kind regards

Rog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
What conversion factor do you use for changing from litres to gallons?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I admit I am puzzled by the question. On the rare occasion that I perform this sort of calculation and it very rarely relates to motor vehicles I use the 2.2 pints to a litre, 4.54 litres to a gallonetc etc. However this has no relation to my cars economy as I simply watch the on board computer which I assume is reasonably accurate. I certainly don't go to the hassle of recalculating what the car tells me.
Rog
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Ah, you are luckyI don't have a fuel computer.



I use 4.54609188 litres to the gallon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
suttonseven said:
Having read several threads owners appear to be disappointed since the cars do not match the claimed figures but its not just Kia,no car I have ever owned has matched the claimed figures.


Have a Ceed 3 SW CRDi, only done 500 miles so far but it appears to have averaged about 45mpg so far, happy with that, about the same as the Focus C-Max 1.6 TDCi it replaced and it will get better as the miles pile on. The claimed for the Focus was 58mpg combined against 60mpg for the Ceed thus expect the Ceedto be doing about 2mpg more than the Focus, will report back later.



The other car in the house is a 2008 BMW 118d, the one with stop-start, claimed is about 63mpg. Had it for 19000 miles now and it has averaged 47.5mpg. Way short of the claimed figure but I still think its good for a 2 litre with 143bhp, much better than a 2002 Mondeo with 128bhp I had some years ago, that only managed to average about 39 mpg against a claimed 48mpg.



Manufacturers "massage" the figures I am sure to make the cars look as good as possible on paper, I use the figures as a guide only when buying. The upside is thelower the claimed consumption the lower the CO and the less tax we pay each year, the BMW is 119 CO's thus £30 per year.



Only ever owned one car that nearly matched the climed figures, a 2005 Mini Cooper S, combined was about 33 mpg, over 15000 miles it did about 32 mpg, way better than I expected.



All the above figures are based on fuel used not on the sometimes inaccurate computer, 90's G o l f was always 8 mpg higher than reality.



One solution would be for an independant organisation like NCAP to carry out the tests rather than allowing the manufacturers to carry them out but how would they garantee getting a "standard" spec car for testing?



Personally I am happy with the current situation, if the figures were made more realistic we would all end up paying more car tax.



Paul











I can understand your point and Kia are certainly not the worst offenders. In a Which? report Kia were about 15% out from the official figures in their tests, which was considered quite good.



However, I am disappointed, for a number of reasons:



1) My old petrol Nissan Cherry of early 1980s vintage would easily do 45mpg, 40 mpg if you thrashed it. We are 30 years on from that now and yet fuel economy has not improved much. Yes cars have got a lot heavier (Nissan Cherry ~800 Kg...Kia Rio ~1300Kg) and they are hindered by catalysts, ecu etc, but I still think with modern engines and technologyit could be better.



2) Some people seem to get fantastic 65+ mpg, whereas others struggle to get 50 mpg. You could argue it's down to driving style, but I think this is more to do with car to car variation, because in my experience, my driving style makes a marginal difference to mpg with my Rio. Clearly something is wrong with the engine mapping. If I drive slowly and keep the revs down, fuel economy should significantly improve. With my old turbo diesel people carrier, if I drove at mostly 75 mph I would get about 35 mpg, but if I drove at mostly 60 mph I could get as much as 50 mpg. I don't see this kind of difference with the Rio.



3) I don't expect to get official figures for my mpg, but for me, I spend most of my time on the motorway. Kia say for the Rio extra urban (const 75 mph) gives just under 70 mpg. So if I sit on the motorway at a constant 70 mph, I would expect to get 60+ mpg. But I don't.



4) The Rio is smaller and lighter than other models in the Kia range and yet it does not always give comparable mpg.



5) I cover up to 1200 miles a week, so mpg is important. If I'd have known the mpg was not so great, I might have stretched my pocket to buy a Nissan Note Diesel. It hasfar better mpg and much more boot space.



Don't get me wrong, I think the Rio CRDi is a fantastic car, it's great fun to drive. I just wish Kia had gone that bit further and mapped the engine management system properly.



It's still not too late, Kia could send out a firmware update to dealers which could be implemented at the next service.



That's my 2p worth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
M4trundler


On the motorway I too would expect to be get 60 ish from a CRDi Rio, if you are getting a lot less there is clearly something wrong with your car. Has the dealer flashed the ECU, even if the car has the latest software its going to do no harm and may help, surely worth a try.



Best car I have ever had for economy was a 96 G o l f TDi, 90 bhp. Would average 60 mpg on a trip to Scotland and about 50 around town regardless of driving style. When you think that a current Ceed is 113 bhp and weighs a considerable amount more the figures that we are getting are not really that bad. Add to that the fact that the G o l f terrified following cars with the huge cloud of smoke it kicked out when you floored it shows that we have come a long way with diesels.



One other factor that is rarely considered is the accuracy of the odometer. The door to door trip to Scotland was exactly 400 miles in the G o l f. In both the Mundaneo and C-Max that followed it the trip was 380 miles, exactly the same route, a 5% difference. If that is factored into the mpg figures the 60 mpg the G o l f acheived drops to 57 mpg, exactly the same as the C-Max regulary acheivedon the same trip.



Will have to wait until May to find out how far it is to Scotland in the Ceed but by then the car should have loosened nicely and I should get a good mpg comparison. Fingers crossed until then.



Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
If I've got things right, the extra urban figure (the high one) is got by driving round a track at a constant 56 mph (90kmh for the foreigners). As I'm usually a bit quicker than that on the motorways, that may explain why I'm getting about 46, when there is a claimed 55mpg


BTW riding my bike (which has cruise control and computer - car has neither) through roadworks, I noticed the indicated economy was showing about 70mpg - not bad for a fully loaded 1200cc tourer. Last christmas when the conditions were poor and my speed slower, I saw 50mpg from the magentis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
suttonseven said:
M4trundler


On the motorway I too would expect to be get 60 ish from a CRDi Rio, if you are getting a lot less there is clearly something wrong with your car. Has the dealer flashed the ECU, even if the car has the latest software its going to do no harm and may help, surely worth a try.



Best car I have ever had for economy was a 96 G o l f TDi, 90 bhp. Would average 60 mpg on a trip to Scotland and about 50 around town regardless of driving style. When you think that a current Ceed is 113 bhp and weighs a considerable amount more the figures that we are getting are not really that bad. Add to that the fact that the G o l f terrified following cars with the huge cloud of smoke it kicked out when you floored it shows that we have come a long way with diesels.



One other factor that is rarely considered is the accuracy of the odometer. The door to door trip to Scotland was exactly 400 miles in the G o l f. In both the Mundaneo and C-Max that followed it the trip was 380 miles, exactly the same route, a 5% difference. If that is factored into the mpg figures the 60 mpg the G o l f acheived drops to 57 mpg, exactly the same as the C-Max regulary acheivedon the same trip.



Will have to wait until May to find out how far it is to Scotland in the Ceed but by then the car should have loosened nicely and I should get a good mpg comparison. Fingers crossed until then.



Paul







I took the car back in to get it looked at, since Ihad the day off work andI noticed the hand brake adjustment they'd done after servicingleft the rear wheels dragging slightly. I also complained about the poor fuel economy and smoking under hard acceleration. Apart from slackening off the handbrake, they said there was nothing wrong with the car. I also noticed the air filter was quite badly blocked, so I changed that. My fuel economy then improved from 51 to 53 mpg, but still a bit lower than it was before the first service. I'm not impressed with the service from this main dealer so I'm looking for somewhere I can take my Rio where I'll get good service.



I would like to get it properly looked at, since sometimes there's a rattling noise just below 3000 rpm in 2nd and 3rd gear, there's a lot of vibration from the engine sometimes when accelerating and it's still smoking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Our Kia Carens 2.0 cdri isn't great but has improved since the cam sensor was replaced after we queried the poor mpg. I estimate we are getting around 36mpg but we do a lot of urban miles.

I drive a VW SPAM Bluemotion company car. Quoted combined mpg of 62.8. I haven't had anything over 56mpg in the first 5000 miles. In fact it is only fractionally better than the 06 plate Toyota Corolla is has replaced which did 80000 miles at an average 53 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Today I jacked up the car to put on my winter tyres and to my disgust, I found the rear brakes to be dragging again...Grrrrr!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
My Kia 1.5 Rio LX CRDI has also been very dissapointing as far as fuel consumption is concerned. It is returning an average of 51 mpg rather than the advertised 61.2. This is taken over the last 10,000 miles and calculated manualy using a conversion figure of 4.546 for gallons to litres. The car has now completed 45,000 miles. This is 20% down on advertisedmpg and compares poorly with my previos car which was a 1.9 Turbo diesel Laguna. A much heavier car with a significantly larger engine and 250,000 miles on the clock! The dealers who have just servicedthe Riosay they can find nothing wrong and there were no ECU updates to install. The car is still under warranty - can anybody else suggest a remedy?

ATG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Since the first service, that's exactly what I get, about 51 mpg and that's almost all motorway driving. It's been tested and the "computer says it's fine".










Have you jacked up your car to see if your brakes are binding? The rear wheels should spin with no drag at all from the brakes and on the front wheels there should just be a small resistance as the pads rub on the discs.



Change your air filter too, mine was extremely badly blocked after only 12k miles. 25k milesis too infrequent in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Thanks M4trundler.
My driving is very mixed (No motorways in Norfolk!) I have just had the car serviced and they say they have cleaned the airfilter,but I will check it. the rear brakes have not been dragging - I checked but will check again since the service.I can't help wondering if these wide, low-profile tyres contribute to the problem, as not all models have alloy wheels. I thought I might also try a fuel system cleaning additive. I would be interested to hearabout anybody elses experience with Rio LX CDRI and the fuel consumption they achieve.

ATG
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top